Ventura for Prez?

From the Examiner:

In the opening to his fourth book, due out April 1, the former wrestler and governor of Minnesota writes: “As I begin to write this book, I’m facing probably the most monumental decision of my 56 years on this planet. Will I run for president of the United States, as an independent, in 2008? Or will I stay as far away from the fray as possible, in a place with no electricity, on a remote beach in Mexico?”

Throughout the book, called “Don’t Start the Revolution Without Me!,” Ventura seems to go back and forth on the question, pro and con:

Pro: “My outrage knows few bounds. … I can’t live with this apathy. I can’t tell myself it’s not happening.”

Con: “Psychologically, I need to break away from the United States. I also felt it was time in my life to go on an adventure. … And I found that, even in the 21st century, you can still be something of a Kit Carson,” the renowned 19th-century frontiersman.

More pros and cons (and a long list of comments) here.

H/T to RK.

37 Responses to “Ventura for Prez?”

  1. disinter Says:

    Run Forrest run!

  2. disinter Says:

    “Don’t Start the Revolution Without Me!,”

    Hmm. Which revolution is he referring to?

  3. Trent Hill Says:

    I cant imagine he’s refering to the Ron Paul Revolution—that’d be rediculous. He’s nowhere near as libertarian/conservative as Paul,and would not garner most of his followers.

  4. disinter Says:

    I’d support him. I’d much rather see someone like him, that is not bought and paid for (as far as I know) and that is not afraid to say what he thinks, as president than the 3 monkeys we have for choices now.

  5. disinter Says:

    And I would DEFINITELY support him over any nutcase from the theocracy party (CP).

  6. Ghoststrider Says:

    He’s a bit late to the party, isn’t he?

  7. disinter Says:

    He’s a bit late to the party, isn’t he?

    Either that or the party started way too early this year (to keep Ron Paul from gaining too much momentum).

  8. Michael Seebeck Says:

    This has been rumored for over a year now.

    Jesse is the one political figure that could really stir the pot up is a productive manner, mainly because hwen it comes to PCness, he doesn’t give a flying f***.

    BTW, based on his last two books, he’s about 70/70 on the Nolan Chart.

    Just for laughs, picture 6’7” 275# Jesse, bald with feather boa, alongside 5’9”, 175# Paul, in somber suit. That’d be one political odd couple that could kick some a$$!

  9. Michael Seebeck Says:

    This has been rumored for over a year now.

    Jesse is the one political figure that could really stir the pot up in a productive manner, mainly because when it comes to PCness, he doesn’t give a flying f***.

    BTW, based on his last two books, he’s about 70/70 on the Nolan Chart.

    Just for laughs, picture 6’7” 275# Jesse, bald with feather boa, alongside 5’9”, 175# Paul, in somber suit. That’d be one political odd couple that could kick some a$$!

  10. Sivarticus Says:

    Ventura gets my vote if Ron Paul isn’t a third party candidate and the Libertarians are running WAR. As a Minnesotan, I can say he was a fairly competent and outspoken Governor, and he certainly raised hell against the two major parties.

  11. Robert Capozzi Says:

    Barr/Ventura anyone? Possibly Ventura/Barr?

    I’m liking the yin/yang aspect of such a ticket.

  12. Dylan Waco Says:

    I have the book in my hand right now. Only twenty pages in, and nothing major so far.

  13. Paulie Says:

    I really like Ventura as a campaigner, but his record as both mayor and governor leaves a lot to be desired.

    Like Reagan, he’s a lot better on the stump than in office. And he’s better on the stump than Reagan.

    I’m very sympathetic to his dilemma, and wish I could afford the remote adventure option - I’d be so there right now it’s not even funny.

  14. Paulie Says:

    http://www.nolanchart.com/article3132.html

  15. Preston Says:

    Paulie—That chart on your link makes no sense. How can Obama and Clinton be so far apart when they are virtually identical on their platform?

  16. Paulie Says:

    Sorry, I don’t know the methodology of how the author came up with those rankings.

    Nor have I read the article and all its comments to see if that was alreday asked and answered. You can ngo over there and ask if truly curious.

  17. Paulie Says:

    Posted By: Jeff Wrobel
    Date: 2008-03-13 11:55:40

    W.A. Andrews: I claim that Obama, Clinton, and McCain are statists because none of them have any intentions of reducing the size and scope of government in any way.

    Obama claims to be anti-war, but when he had the chance to vote against the war he skipped town. It’s hard to figure out his exact position on anything, but in general his rhetoric involves getting the government involved more in every area.

    McCain panders to conservatives by claiming to want lower taxes, but he has no plans whatsoever to reduce our spending, so he is definitely not fiscally conservative. He’s proven to be anti-free speech (McCain-Feingold). The 100 years he plans to spend in Iraq is enough by itself to qualify him as a statist.

    Clinton is the biggest and scariest statist of them all. She’s not going to end the war in Iraq. She tried (and thankfullly failed) to give us a corporate/government run healthcare system. She has a plethora of new programs and plans to better manage our old programs.

    Are any of the 3 major candidates going to end the war on drugs? Are any of them going to return to the gold standard? Don’t they all want National ID cards? I can harldy find an issue on which any of themy are not statists.

    Every “solution” all these candidates have proposed involves new government agencies and new laws. They claim to love freedom in one form or another, but when you look at their voting history and think about how every plan they have involves more government, you can see that they are all statists.

  18. Paulie Says:

    Posted By: Logical Premise
    Date: 2008-03-13 15:30:19

    Saying that Obama and Hillary are statists because they don’t plan on reducing the size of government is equivilent to saying McCain is a Libertarian because he’s advocated reducing government spending in some areas.

    This is, without a doubt, the most ridiculous piece I’ve ever seen. A radical statist has nothing in common with Clinton , period. At best, she fits into the area where far left liberalism meets statism.

    It’s very clear, despite your claims, you don’t understand Statists or the Nolan Chart. Let me break it down for you: a statist in the position you have Clinton in would suggest:

    1. Total outright invasion of the entire Middle East

    2: State controlled religion

    3. Complete regulation of the economy

    4. Since a majority of the people are against same-sex marriages and gay rights, criminalization of gays and homosexual activity.

    5. Since a majority of the people are against abortion, criminization of abortion.

    Please, stop using “statist” as some kind of smear to villify people. You just make yourself look, well, like you’re trying to manipulate things the way several others have called you on here.

    Report violation

    ————————————————————————————————————————
    Posted By: Jeff Wrobel
    Date: 2008-03-13 22:02:21

    Logical Premise: What is the root of the word “statist”? The answer is “state”. Obama, Clinton, and McCain all love the state. In what areas do you think Clinton doesn’t want the state involved?
    Report violation

  19. Dave Williams Says:

    “Obama claims to be anti-war, but when he had the chance to vote against the war he skipped town. It’s hard to figure out his exact position on anything, but in general his rhetoric involves getting the government involved more in every area.”

    His position? He’s Goddamn Wright, in Goddamn America!

  20. Dave Williams Says:

    BHO’s preacher kicks major ass! And I thought Pastors were pussies!

  21. Dave Williams Says:

    He’s dug in like an Alabama tick…yeeeehawwwww!! VENTURA/ROOT ‘08

  22. NewFederalist Says:

    I think the analogy of Ventura to Reagan is quite accurate. I doubt Gov. Ventura would consider the LP as a vehicle for an alternative presidential campaign but who knows? Does anyone think he could actually win the nomination should he try for it?

  23. Dave Williams Says:

    Um, nope.

  24. disinter Says:

    I’m very sympathetic to his dilemma, and wish I could afford the remote adventure option - I’d be so there right now it’s not even funny.

    In Mexico? They will be under the same rules we are in a couple of years, if not sooner. Canada has already agreed to send combat troops into American cities if needed. NAU is upon us. Your best bet is to follow this guy’s advice:

    http://www.theheartlandusa.com/

  25. NewFederalist Says:

    Whatever happened to Ventura’s being a political pal of Donald Trump? I think I remember them being aligned against Ross Perot in the old Reform Party days. If that is still true then there is Jesse’s running mate and source of funds.

  26. Fred C. Says:

    I think when Ventura first brought up the possibility around 05, he specifically said he would do it as a true independent and not have any kind of party vehicle.

  27. paulie Says:

    In Mexico?

    No, not in Mexico. I’d go further.

  28. Phil Sawyer Says:

    If the Libertarian Party had any sense, it would nominate Ralph Nader, Jesse Ventura, or another well known, good, person who could bring the Party into the 21st Century!

  29. G.E. Says:

    If Phil Sawyer had any sense, he would realize what an idiotic comment he posted above mine.

  30. Dylan Waco Says:

    Just finished the book. Near the end Venture basically says he could not run now because the job would be too hard and he wants a shot at a clean slate. The book is also filled with JFK and 9/11 conspiracy theories, not to mention Ventura theorizing that he was under constant CIA surveillance. Near the end of the book he even favorably quotes Jim Marrs book “The Terror Conspiracy”.

    I am not saying any of this to discredit Ventura. It takes guts to go on record with a lot of the stuff he writes about in the book. But when he talks about how he told President Clinton to blow up the wailing wall/DOTR in order to solve the Israeli/Palestinian project, it is hard to take him seriously as a candidate for garbage collector, much less President.

  31. Andy Says:

    I think that Jesse Ventura has the right instincts but he just never put all of the pieces of the puzzel together. Give me a chance to hang out with Jesse for a few weeks and I’ll convert him to being hardcore libertarian, and then maybe we can win the White House.:)

  32. Lex Says:

    Can’t we just send McCain, Obama, and Clinton on the remote adventure, and talk Ron Paul into running as an independent?

    Jesse Ventura isn’t perfect on the issues (who is), but he has the resume (state governor) and the charisma and the integrity to attract a sizable following and wage a real campaign, unlike anyone else left standing outside the two old parties.

  33. Hugh Jass Says:

    I hope that Jesse really does run, and that this isn’t just hype to sell his book. With Paul effectively out, Barr looking unlikely to run, and Root as the Libertarian frontrunner as of now, I’m not sure who to turn to if he doesn’t.

  34. Paulie Says:

    Give me a chance to hang out with Jesse for a few weeks and I’ll convert him to being hardcore libertarian, and then maybe we can win the White House.:)

    I can see Ventura locked in a motel room with Andy for a few weeks of intense deprogramming.

    Andy would weaken Ventura’s Navy SEAL toughened mental defenses by constant, relentless, unending repetition of his talking points, anecdotes, and circular arguments, all in excruciating detail far beyond the range of the normal human mind to comprehend.

    Drip, drip, drip would Andy’s conversation go on Ventura’s brain, like verbal Chinese water torture.

    In between the mental torture, Ventura would be physically tortured as Andy takes hour long dumps with no prior warning. Jesse would be forced to piss first in the motel’s plastic cups, and then in the radiator and coffee pot after the cups run out.

    Then, it would be right back to drip, drip, drip, drip, drip, drip….

    Would Ventura snap and start to apply wresting moves to Andy? Would he emerge as a hardcore Stalinist (he’s a contrarian, you know)? Or, would his mental defenses finally yield to Andy’s superior, remarkably untiring chiseling persistence?

    Would he emerge as Andy’s mesmerized puppet?

    Stay tuned, boys and girls!

  35. Paulie Says:

    Can’t we just send McCain, Obama, and Clinton on the remote adventure,

    That would be too ideal.


    and talk Ron Paul into running as an independent?

    Dr. No said No and meant No. The answer is No.


    Jesse Ventura isn’t perfect on the issues (who is), but he has the resume (state governor) and the charisma and the integrity to attract a sizable following and wage a real campaign, unlike anyone else left standing outside the two old parties.

    His resume as state governor is that he essentially governmed as a DFL style governor after campaigning as a breath of fresh air. Of course those who paid close attention to his record as mayor of Brooklyn Park were not surprised, as the same thing happened there. Much as those who studied Reagan’s record as Governor of California were not at all surprised when he did not carry out the smaller government parts of his campaign message after being elected president.

    Why bother electing an independent if he is not going to govern independently?

    I hope that Jesse really does run, and that this isn’t just hype to sell his book. With Paul effectively out, Barr looking unlikely to run, and Root as the Libertarian frontrunner as of now, I’m not sure who to turn to if he doesn’t.

    Mary Ruwart might be good, probably the best. Barr does not look too unlikely to run.

    I still like a lot of things about Kubby.

  36. Sean Scallon Says:

    Whether he runs or not depends upon whether he gives in to his enormous ego, which probably wants to run, over common sense.

  37. Phil Sawyer Says:

    G.E. Says:

    March 15th, 2008 at 8:16 pm
    If Phil Sawyer had any sense, he would realize what an idiotic comment he posted above mine.

    Phil Sawyer responds:

    As I said to Eric Dondero and others, when you resort to calling people nasty names, it only proves that you are losing the debate on the issues.

Leave a Reply